thank you
I'll call
Mr. Wampanian to raise his hand
about my testimony
they've been
about to speak
sir could you state your name please and spell it for the
stenographer
yeah mr pena could you state your name and spell for the stenographer
uh uh juan pena j-u-n-a p-e-n-a right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
to nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel good afternoon mr pena did you hear
my testimony just now about your property at 4828 d street yes do you agree with what i said
yes okay i have nothing further for mr council one more question so you when you went to the
rco you originally wanted three and they they came to two and you agreed with two we agreed with two
Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. Questions on the board?
No questions, Chair. Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Just briefly, Mr. Chair, I want to clarify two things. One, that there
are a couple of addresses associated with this location, as Mr. Consul said,
so that can be a little bit confusing. Second thing is the application
was filed for two families, so there's not an amended
refusal here, so I just wanted to clarify. I apologize.
That might have been in our appeal with L&I when they had inspected,
which led to us filing for this and it becoming clear the basement
was not appropriate. No problem. I just double-checked
because, yeah, sometimes we do get updated or corrected amended refusals, so
I just checked it to make sure, but yeah, this is what was originally requested in the application,
so there's no this is the original refusal yeah i dealt with an l and i case separately to this
too originally so anyway questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no further answer mr chair planning commission
amy boyd with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to existing rsa 5 single-family residential zoning at this location the appellant has shown
that the proposed use is consistent with prior use and the physical circumstances of this property
before the owner purchased it, and that complying with the zoning requirements would constitute a
hardship. Therefore, the city plan commission recommends that the board grant the variance for
two-family household living. Thank you. MI 2024-001-034-4828 D Street, I vote yes.
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
lebaron leonard palmer my vote is yes mr consul could you please stay on yes sir okay so number
nine mi 2024 001 334 501
MI 2024-001-334-501-Kaufman Street.
Mr. Consul is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the Queen Village neighbors with a request for a temporary variance and a letter of non-opposition received from Council Member Squilla.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Joseph Consul.
uh once again um i'm here with uh my clients um joseph i swedish he might be on there as
ian swedish uh or joseph swedish i'm not certain what he's coming up as on there but joseph
swedish okay it's joseph and uh elizabeth they own 501 kauffman street um what's
our vice chair or i'm sorry no that's okay that's okay our vice chair has a few questions for you
sir counsel do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards accuracy yes
i do you know then all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to
proceed in this case five days in advance of this hearing yes thank you counsel please proceed and
share your screen all right so the packet should be up i switched from one to the other did that
did that work i know the zooms kind of changed yes it's up it's okay 501 kaufman street uh joe
console. This property was purchased in February of 2020 by my clients. First of all, it's a 423
square foot property. It's quite small in Queen Village. They live with their family
in a property that backs up to this property. So they purchased it in early 2020 as a property
that could both be used as a visitor accommodations permit and a place for friends and family to stay
when they're in town visiting them.
And the property has been an active short-term rental since that time.
And as I'll show you in a second, they've got nothing but glowing reviews from the folks that have stayed there.
We believe that coupled with the fact that it's such a tiny property
and it abuts the property that my clients live in,
we believe it makes for a good candidate
for granting this variance.
So refusal, as you know,
visitor accommodation is prohibited.
This property happens to be zoned RM1,
although, as I said, it's quite tiny.
The lot itself is 423 square feet.
So we've got an RM1
seeking visitor accommodations approval.
we went in front of the queen village neighbors association uh they voted to not oppose which um
feels like a a great vote from them uh in terms of what what queen village uh issues they um
were uh sort of um buoyed by the fact that a near neighbor came by and said that they
really approve of this and that my clients run this this property very well and in fact they
didn't even know that there was anything going on there. And they therefore issued that they're
not in opposition. They asked for a, I guess I'll qualify, they asked for a one-year temporary
variance. We're hoping to either not get that or have a more favorable variance than one year.
We understand their position, but we don't expect that after four years, my client will suddenly
start operating this in some way that is detrimental to Queen Village.
There's a proof of mailing, photos and plans.
There's one that I believe shows, there you go, you can see how small the property is.
There's not many properties in this area, the smaller, there's a couple, but this one
is tiny.
Showing the street, the interior of the property.
and the layout as it stands on airbnb as you can see it has got a ton of character
it's quite cute there's the one space to sleep my client included in there a little bit about
his family the owners their daughter and dog that's their property compared to the actual
properties. So they're fronting Catherine Street where they live and this property
fronts Kauffman Street. So, you know, he was at the meeting was saying, you know,
literally to clean the Airbnb, just walks out of his backyard and into this property
and cleans it for the next, for the next renter.
They call it the Queen Star. Looks good. Got a ton of
great reviews. 5.0, which might be the highest I've ever
presented in front of the board. 71 reviews going back to February
of 2020. There's the need.
There's the deed.
Zero dollar tax balance.
I believe we submitted a tax clearance certificate.
If not, we will get that in immediately, but there's no tax balance due here.
I know Mr. Swedish was working on that when I last spoke to him.
With that, I'll call Joseph Swedish to adopt my testimony.
we see mr swedish yes they have been enough to speak sir hi mr swedish could you please state
your name and spell for the stenographer yes can you hear me i can yes sir uh joseph ian swedish
that's j-o-s-e-p-h-i-a-n-s-w-e-d-i-s-h do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel good afternoon mr swedish did you hear my testimony
just now about your property at 501 kaufman street i did do you agree with it and adopt it as your
i do all right nothing further board questions from the board
no questions chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary members
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
do not see any further hands mr chair planning commission
Amy Boyd with the City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RM Run Multifamily Zoning at this location. The appellant has not supported their hardship plan with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the requested variance for visitor accommodation.
Thank you. MI 2024-001-334-501 Coffman Street, I vote yes for temporary variance. That expires 5-22-27.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with provisos.
LeBaron Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, board.
Number 10, MI 2024-001-509-4235 West Style Street.
Alan Notcomson is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition from the East Parkside Residence Association
and the Central Park CDC, which was the coordinating.
Both oppose the proposed density.
Applicant has eight form letters of support and seven from the block.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Alan Ockhamson.
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Yeah, interesting name for a corporate entity.
It's Ristler Carter S11 backslash 81 LLC.
In the virtual audiences, it's member Rich Carter.
our vice chair has a few questions good afternoon council do you agree to we have to read another
refusal or stipulate to his accuracy i do have you emailed them all the required documents and
exhibits that is needed and required to proceed in this case five days in advance of this hearing
oh yes we have thank you council please proceed to share the screen thank you
um as the chairman stated we actually have we have eight letters um of support uh form letters
to support seven on this block um yeah we had our community meeting last night regarding 42 35 west
style streets as you'll see during the presentation i i honestly thought it was a very straightforward
project based on you know what's in the area what the 2035 plan um projects as the the intended use
for this property given this location uh next to two commercial corridors i thought it was pretty
straightforward so we were a little bit surprised when we got pushed back from the community
so we'll first review the news of refusal then the correspondence from the centennial parkside
community development. And there was an additional letter from one of the other RCOs. But my client
knows his block very well. His kids lived on the block for many, many years. He's a known quantity
and he knows the neighborhood very well. So it was easy for him to personally get
So it was easy for him to personally get letters of support from the nearby neighbors for this
letters of support from the nearby neighborhood.
project. This has been a dilapidated abandoned building for some time in desperate need of
repair. So it's going to be a very expensive project to renovate this property, keep its
beautiful building facade, which is going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So, and the use that we're requesting of three units at this RSA5 property is reasonable under
circumstances. First, based on the 2035 plan, the West Park plan indicates that the City
Planning Commission has labeled this as a soon-to-be RM1 property. The lot size for this
property is 1,331 square feet. So if this was an RM1 property, which is not, three units would be
allow this right. The second reason why we thought this is an appropriate triplex was the fact that
we looked at other properties on this block, and there are three other instances, 4243, 4241,
and 4221, all triplexes under similar circumstances. So what we're requesting is not
a character to this part of the neighborhood. Plus, it's on half a block away from West
derrard avenue which you know is you know aspirationally a commercial corridor as well as
i believe another commercial corridor nearby as well then you'll see maps of the area uh photographs
of the property and surrounding the area um our architectural plans and drawings our rco meeting
notice um we met with the community last night so uh we're just you know trying to digest what
the community told us, and I have some provisos which would address many of their concerns.
Our application for appeal that we filed before the ZBA are a deed to the property showing that
corporate entity that's owned by Mr. Carter, is the owner of the property, as well as the
certificate of tax clearance. At the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Mr. Carter
virtually raise his hand and be sworn in, and I have a few questions for him. But based on community
the input, I just want to put it out there. We are looking to reduce the amount of refusals here
where the only refusal we would have ultimately is that use refusal of three units, which is,
you know, again, you know, not out of character in conformance with the 2035 plan. So we would
have a proviso, no roof deck or no roof deck access structure. That gets rid of two of the
three refusals. There was a concern in front of the community of having outdoor area above grade.
We have a backyard, which is accessible to all units because we have a common walkway.
So that goes to the second proviso. In addition to no roof deck or no roof deck access structure,
the second proviso would be trash would be stored outside because everyone has access to that.
The third refusal would have to do with, there was concerns about trash management, which is why we have the trash outside in the back for everyone, but in an enclosure.
But we would also do commercial trash pickup because, again, the community thought it was a burden, you know, to have city trash pickup.
So, you know, we want to be responsible and we want to show our investment in the community.
So that would be the third refusal.
And then, excuse me, proviso.
And then the fourth proviso, there was concern of having bedrooms in the basement. And so my client would agree to a proviso, no bedrooms in the basement. They would like living in the basement because they think that extra space in the basement would be good for a living room, a play area of some sort.
So we were hoping that, you know, the board would just limit it to no bedrooms in the
basement.
And so that's, those are the four provisos.
First one, no roof deck or roof deck access structure.
Second one, commercial trash pickup.
Third one, trash stored outside.
Fourth one, no bedrooms in the basement.
Based on that, we, you know, again, with eliminating the roof deck and the roof deck
access structure, we're down to one refusal, which is a three family dwelling.
So we did meet with the community and, you know, they they submitted letters this morning to us and we submitted that in the packet.
So but again, what we showed the community was that we actually made outreach.
My client personally made outreach to individuals on that block.
I tried to I told my client how important it was to get these individuals to speak at this at this hearing.
It was too late notice. Like we really thought this was a straightforward project.
Given the factual circumstances here, but before the community meeting and before this hearing, he had 4240 Style Street support it, 4227 Style Street, 4229 Style Street, 42220 Style Street, 4218 Style Street, 4237 Style Street, which is next door to us.
4218-style street, 4237-style street, which is next door to us, which is going to be most
directly impacted by any use of this property, and 4243-style street. He really kept it to this
block, which he knows very well. And then the 2035 plan indicates that the proposed use of
this property, aspirationally by the year 2035, would be RM1, again, to help support that nearby
commercial corridor. So again, not out of character on the block, you know, based on what we'll show